I tend to think one of the great things about fully enclosed armor like Iron Man’s or plate mail is that it allows for all kinds of bending by virtue of so many types of people being able to imagine themselves in it.
Plate armor isn’t exactly spandex, but it’s also not a tank you wear on your body.
And like, any male ranger/thief/whatever agility based class character is not going out in a metal speedo, so why exactly are female warrior/strength/heavy armor + weapons type characters in chainmail bikinis?
The agility defence is the official worst argument when it comes to fantasy armors.
And a little bit more on why the “women aren’t strong enough to wear armor” myth is just absurd.
Remember, in times of war they used to fit hundreds of soldiers in this stuff and expect them to fight all day with heavy weapons. Armor had to be light enough allow an “average” man with training to use it reliably, which means it’d be easily usable for the “average” woman with the same training.
Of course. A lot of the armor that is on display in museums and owned by private collectors (and hence shown in books) was purely ornate and never intended to be worn into battle. After all, not setting foot on a battlefield does help improve the chances of your armor not being destroyed.
Prior to firearms, crossbows and other innovations making heavy armor redundant, it was commonplace for rich leaders who didn’t actually set foot on the battlefield to decorate their armor. Roman Emperors in particular seemed fond of looking absolutely fabulous in armor.
Ancestral armor was not really a thing in most places because generally a memorable suit of armor was part of an individual’s identity. A noble’s armor were also unlikely to fit their heirs – outside of Disney movies few families have identical measurements from generation to generation. Finally there was the issue that armor adapted as weapons did – wearing the previous generation’s armor exposed you to the current generation’s weapons.
The armor above was made for Sigismund II Augustus, the then King of Poland (who it seems probably never set foot on a battlefield) – and was one of twenty private armors owned by him at the time of his death. It would not have been unusual for a noble wearing such as suit in a parade to accessorize with a sash and/or long cape.
The important part about purely ornate armor is that it looks like armor – just with decorations that go beyond being practical. They still reflect the core armor values of the era but they’re just over decorated*, questionable accessorized and may have reductions made to facilitate their non-combat use (such as no gauntlets or arm protection if it’s for wearing to dinners and parties).
A very nice article that contrasts myths and facts about plate armor. The bit that’s most interesting for BABD is of course point 3, the one about boobplate:
Now, I know the internet has been on the buzz with blog posts crying out at about how deadly Boob plate is, but how deadly is it really? Well, the main reason you would not want to wear boob plate is that the cleavage (if you didn’t know, cleavage refers specifically to the area of separation between each breast) acts as a ‘guide’ that would force a thrusting attack directly into your armored sternum. Now, likely this isn’t as lethal as the internet would like you to believe. Swords aren’t effective against plate armor- normally. Certain weapons like the edgeless Estoc and zweilhander are tailor made for thrusting and piercing into plate armor. Coincidentally these weapons existed at their peak in the 15th and 16th century – the period with the heaviest armored soldiers. But please remember, plate armor would not have lasted as long as it did if it was not effective.
Your average longsword though isn’t going to penetrate armor because it doesn’t just have to get through the plate. A plate wearing warrior starts dressing for battle by putting on his or her gambeson. This was a fairly heavy jacket commonly made with cotton and was somewhere around a half inch thick. With roughly 20-40 layers of cotton these were known to stop heavy arrows by themselves. They were in sense the middle ages ballistics vest. Then the warrior would don a mail shirt – and those of the highest quality would be as fluid as a silk shirt while also being impenetrable to a needle. These alone would stop sword cuts and small projectiles. THEN the warrior donned his plates that covered the underarmor. These alone can stop most sword thrusts and all sword blows. Combined these defenses would make it impossible to use a sword against a plate wearer if it wasn’t an estoc or zweilhander. Those only being successful due to their narrow blade that was designed to exploit the small gaps and unions between separate plates.
So then boob plate wouldn’t reallybe that fatal. It however certainly does not increase your chances of living and should be avoided just to reduce your chances of impalement. Another argument all these blog posts seem to be picking from the same source is that boob plate would break your sternum if you fell flat on it and accompanied with it is this picture:
Ok, in this severe of a case without a gambeson or mail underneath and with a fairly large bust size that would break your sternum if you fell on it. But, boob plate is even common in the SCA and I have seen people fall flat on their faces – the bruises left by the weapons are far bigger than those left by armor. They were were however wearing a breastplate with shallow curves and clothing underneath – much like a woman in the middle ages would’ve. Note also that the SCA forbids armor with separated breast cups, meaning that any boob formed plates need to be formed directly into the breastplate.
So what’s the real reason armor shouldn’t have boob plates? Simply put it’s because we have zero historical examples of it, and it’s not for any of the reasons listed in the article. They are all modern theories made by modern minds with more knowledge of the internet than of armor. Think about it from the mind of a blacksmith. Or a bullet proof vest maker. Do we make bullet proof vest custom made for women? No, because a properly fitted bullet proof vest is comfortable to wear and it would be silly to make it anymore body hugging. The same holds true with armor. A custom tailored breastplate made for a women will be just as comfortable as if it were boob plate. There is absolutely no benefit in creating those awkward curves in the armor with primitive tools. It would’ve been extra work for no gain. Plus, a woman already looks much more androgynous after she’s put on her gambeson and mail coat. The defining characteristic of a female suit of armor is the torso…it’s often narrower and occasionally it will be “corseted” mimicking the hourglass shape of the woman that wore it. These examples of female armor though are extremely rare, in fact we only have a handful of surviving suits today that we can at best guess assume were tailored for women.
There is an extremely critical difference that you need to remember between mock battles and real battles.
People in mock battles are not only not trying to kill you, they’re actually take deliberate steps to make sure you aren’t injured!
In a real battle your head is particularly vulnerable and a high priority to protect for a variety of reasons:
Head wounds bleed really strongly, between blood in your eyes and problems from blood loss – a relatively light cut can be a death sentence
Your head is relatively unprotected compared to your other vital regions. Even a glancing blow can do serious damage to organs like your eyes, nose, etc
Because it is on top of your body, your head is vulnerable to attacks from pretty much every angle except directly below it so it has more ways to get hurt
As well as being the end point for the common carotid arteries, your head also contains a vital organ known as the brain. Serious harm to this organ can result in life long crippling and/or death.
Not wearing a helmet as part of artistic license is often employed with characters who are either not normally in armor, or who need to be recognizable as unique among many armored figures.
However it is also often employed with female characters because of the idea that unless a character has long flowing locks, warm kissable lips and a dainty little nose clearly on display – men won’t be able to tell the character is female (and hence they’re supposed to be attracted to her).
Basically prioritizing the sexualization and objectification of female characters over portraying them as competent, interesting people, etc.
